The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2014 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,844 times Debate No: 46021
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




See: TrueJusticeForMeredithKercher, Rudy Guede posts.

NO WAY is the indictment of AMANDA KNOX and RAFFAELE SOLLECITO a matter of corruption, or international/ political bias; GUILTY!


Meredith was virtually motionless throughout the attack; defensive wounds almost non-existent, because she was STRONGLY RESTRAINED. (Meredith's arms were held behind her back).

Dr Galati"s appeal argued it was ILLEGAL for Hellmann and Zanetti NOT to have taken the Supreme Court's ruling on THREE perpetrators fully into account, having brushed past it.

The HONOURABLE Judge Micheli's major reasons to indict Knox and Sollecito:

1. Sollecito's LIE about the time he phoned police: 2 NOV.12.35pm Postal Police arrived unexpectedly at the cottage to find Knox and Sollecito stood outside. Postal Police had learned of some disturbance at the cottage. Sollecito told them HE HAD ALREADY phoned the police, which was A LIE; he phoned the police at 12.51pm and 12.54pm; FIFTEEN MINUTES AFTER the Postal Police arrived.

2. Meredith"s and Amanda"s DNA on knife.

3. Raffaele"s and Amanda's DNA on M"s bra clasp and inch of fabric.

Claims of contamination and "poor matches" of DNA samples raised by the defenses; DNA expert Dr. Stefanoni"s arguments in reply, summarized in Judge Micheli"s report.

Dr S. admits the RFU readings are low (M's blood on knife blade), but her experience is that many cases of unquestionable matches exist showing readings even lower.

Contamination in the lab is excluded by Dr S; samples were processed with maximum care to avoid any contamination during lab procedures.

Contamination during collection phase is excluded by Judge Micheli, as samples were collected by different officers at different times in different places.

Sollecito"s DNA on M's bra clasp is UNQUESTIONABLE, according to lab reports.

Who came back, cut off Meredith"s bra and moved her body some time later? NOT Guede who went home, cleaned himself up and went out on the town with his friends; WHO had access to the cottage...?!

4. STAGED BREAK-IN: Broken glass ON TOP of ransacked items and marks on the inside shutter both demonstrate window was broken from inside. Knox and Sollecito's defense lawyers FAILED MISERABLY to prove Guede climbed in Filomena"s bedroom window.

Bloody bare footprints, shown up with luminol and fit Knox"s and Sollecito"s feet suggest they entered Filomena"s room and created the scene AFTER Meredith was killed.

5. PROVEN CLEAN UP after the crime and after staged break-in: Meredith"s blood was in the bathroom and her bedroom, however, NO visible blood INBETWEEN. The only visible blood in the hall UNDER CLOSE EXAMINATION, was faint partial shoe prints by Guede as he left the apartment.

Only Guede stated there was blood in the hall in his diary (initially, neither the Postal Police nor roommates and friends noticed any blood in the hall). Guede: "... ...asking myself how is it possible that Amanda could have slept in all that mess, and took a shower with all that blood in the bathroom AND CORRIDOR? (Guede, Germany Diary, P21)

18th DEC: Investigators applied Luminol (detects cleaned away blood), in hall and other rooms, which revealed several footprints in hall between rooms of Knox and Meredith. Also discovered prints in Filomena"s room, which contained Meredith"s DNA and Knox"s DNA, plus a footprint in Knox"s room. WHO had the motivation to hide this evidence? A.Knox/R Sollecito.

Neither Judge Micheli, Judge Massei nor the Supreme Court believe Guede acted alone or had any part in the VERY OBVIOUS CLEAN UP.

6. STAGED SEX ASSAULT SCENE by someone who had knowledge of prior sex attack and wanted to leave the blame solely withGuede.

7. Testimony of Antonio Curatolo: Amanda and Raffaele seen 1 Nov. in Piazza Grimana sometime around 11:00 to 11:30pm; they came into the square from the direction of Via Pinturicchio. Curatolo is certain it was the night before the Piazza filled up with policemen asking if anyone had seen Meredith.

8. Testimony of neighbour, Nara Capazzali: 1 Nov. She heard someone run up the steps in the direction of that street at that time.

9. Testimony of Hekuran Kokomani who was definitely in the vicinity of the cottage on both 31st Oct. and 1st Nov: He places Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede together outside the cottage on 1st Nov, at the SAME TIME as the other witnesses. His evidence also places all three outside the cottage the previous night.

After listening to all arguments, Judge Micheli provided reasons why he rejected the contamination claims and ruled that ALL biological traces identified as reflecting Sollecito"s and Knox"s DNA are ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. He concluded that the DNA evidence against Sollecito and Knox IS sound and, considered along with the non-biological proof, he RIGHTLY decided there was MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence to order Knox and Sollecito to stand trial.

It is also largely believed that Guede, who would otherwise have nothing to lose, has received DEATH THREATS, should he speak out about the involvement of Knox and Sollecito.



Thanks for the debate Mr. February. I have been wanting to debate this for awhile now.

=== Burden of proof ===

Burden of proof lies with Pro to prove guilt. Given that this is a criminal case, the burden of proof must be by the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

My job is only to prove that there is enough doubt surrounding the case that Knox should not have been convicted. I do not have the more difficult task of affirmatively proving her innocence. Although I think the facts do establish her innocence, proving someone "not guilty" only requires proving that the prosecution does not have enough *evidence* to convict.

=== The case that Knox is not guilty ===

When determining guilt, a jury usually decides which of two competing stories is more compelling. I will lay out the two possible stories below.

Story #1: Rudy Guede acted alone

Rudy Guede is an African immigrant who was living in Perugia, Italy at the time of Meredith Kercher"s murder. Guede had prior arrests for drug dealing and burglary and had been in trouble with police multiple times during his short stay in Perugia. [1] As Steve Moore - an expert in forensics at the FBI - states, this is a simple case of "resident-surprises-burglar." [2] Guede broke into Meredith"s room by shattering her bedroom window. Meredith's friends testified that she decided to go home early before heading out clubbing. Meredith came home and found Guede in her room. She freaked out. Guede panicked and attacked her with a knife. As Moore explains, Meredith fought "bravely" for her life; there were 46 wounds on her body consistent with a desperate struggle. [3] Guede killed Meredith and decided to have sex with her dead body. [2] He then took a dump in Meredith"s bathroom, covered her body with her bedspread, threw her phone out the window, and fled the country.

Guede's DNA was found all over Meredith"s room and inside her vagina. A bloody handprint and footprints were found in Meredith's room that all matched Guede. [3] Guede attempted to flee the country, which is evidence of guilt.

Story #2: Knox, Sollecito, and Guede acted together

The prosecution's theory of motive has changed multiple times, but the original theory was that Amanda Knox, her boyfriend (Raphael Sollecito), and Rudy Guede were part of a Satanic cult or sex club that attempted to coerce Meredith into having sex with them. Sollecito is alleged to have held Meredith's arms and Knox is alleged to have held a knife to Meredith"s neck while Guede had sex with her. When Guede was done, Knox slashed Meredith's throat. Guede left, and Knox and Sollecito are alleged to have staged the scene to look like a break-in.

The problems with this theory are manifest. First, as an Italian court of appeals (that acquitted Knox) noted, there is no evidence that Knox and Sollecito knew Guede. [4] Their phone records reveal no communication between Knox/Sollecito and Guede. [4] Second, Knox and Sollecito had no motive to kill Meredith. Knox was a Dean's List exchange student. [2] There is no evidence that she was part of a cult. In addition, she had only been dating Sollecito for a few weeks. It is unlikely that if she said, "Hey, let"s kill my roommate" that he would have gone along with it. Third, there is an absence of DNA evidence linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime. [2] Meredith"s neck would have spewed blood all over Knox and Sollecito. [2] However, as Steve Moore explains, there are no bloody footprints or anything else in Meredith"s room that are attributable to Knox or Sollecito, and the police did not find evidence of blood on any of Knox"s or Sollecito"s clothing (even if put in the wash, traces of the blood would not wash out). [2]

As Steve Moore explains, this is a classic case of a botched police investigation. FBI investigators are warned that their original theory of the case might be wrong, and they must revise their theory based on the evidence. The police"s original theory was that Knox killed her roommate (because of small inconsistencies in her alibi story). However, the police stuck to their guns even when they caught the true killer (Guede) and even when they failed to find any DNA evidence linking Knox to the murder.

Knox's case was rife with abuse. The lead prosecutor on her case was later found guilty of misconduct. Two of the police investigators were also later found guilty of misconduct. Investigators lied to Knox and said she had tested positive for HIV so they could get a complete history of all of her sexual partners [to prove their sex cult theory]. Police used sleep deprivation techniques in interrogating Knox that are the *same techniques* used by the CIA when interrogating suspected terrorists. [5] Knox was interrogated for almost 43 hours straight. [5]

When police failed to find *any* trace of Knox or Sollecito in Meredith"s room, they went back a few weeks later to try again. The crime scene had already been mostly abandoned and not properly maintained, but six weeks after the initial investigation, police found Meredith"s bra clasp (which they had missed earlier) that had been swept into the corner of the room and had been sitting in a huge pile of dust. The clasp tested positive for Sollecito"s DNA, as well as testing positive for the DNA of five other people. [2] As Moore explains, dust is mostly composed of human skin cells. [2] That pile of dust likely contained cells from anyone who had ever been in the common areas of the apartment. [2] In addition, the prosecution claims that Sollecito touched the clasp because he undid Meredith's bra. However, the bra strap was cut by Guede. [2] If Guede used a knife to cut open Meredith's bra, there would be no reason for Sollecito to touch the clasp. [2]

There was a violent struggle in that room with Meredith fighting for her life and Guede's DNA is *everywhere.* It seems impossible that no trace of Knox was *ever* found in the room, and only one tiny trace of Sollecito was ever found. It seems more likely that there was contamination of the crime scene due to the dust.

The *only* other piece of DNA evidence was Sollecito's kitchen knife. The prosecution claims to have found a tiny piece of Meredith's DNA on the tip of the knife. However, first the Italian court of appeals found that the lab technicians and police had been willing to perjure themselves about the forensic evidence in this case. [6] So it is pretty sketchy that police claimed that the sample was so small that it was "used up in testing," so the defense could not do any independent testing of the knife. A second possibility is that the tiny trace of DNA was simply stuck to the inside of their lab equipment. [6] The police had been testing a number of objects from inside Meredith's room, so her DNA was inside the equipment. It is likely that investigators simply failed to clean the equipment completely before testing the knife. [6]

Tellingly, of the six stab wounds on Meredith"s body, the kitchen knife *could not* have made five of them and "maybe" could have made one of them [according to the testimony of the prosecution's own forensic expert]. It seems more likely that Guede ditched the real murder weapon elsewhere, and police have never found it.

My opponent cites the testimony of Hekuran Kokomani who was shown to be lying at trial. [7] His testimony is ludicrous in a number of ways. [8] The Knox trial is a very high profile case in Italy. Knox was vilified in the media. Kokomani thought he could lie to help the prosecution's case.

I will address some of my opponent"s other arguments in the next round.

[4] Mirabella, Julia Grace, Scales of Justice: Assessing Italian Criminal Procedure Through the Amanda Knox Trial (January 5, 2012).
Debate Round No. 1


Story #1: Rudy Guede acted alone: FALSE

1. Guede did not enter the cottage via Filomena's bedroom window. The reasons why this is not, and could not, be true have already been established: End of.

2. As has already been proved by the very few possible defensive wounds, Meredith was unable to fight for her life. This matter has already been established: End of.

3. There is no proof that Guede had sex with Meredith; dead or alive. It has been proved that Guede 'raped' Meredith with his fingers.

4. There is no proof that Guede 'took a dump...covered her body..., threw her phone out the window after he killed her'.

5. It has been proved that Guede did not leave the country straight after Meredith's death; instead he went to a nightclub. He left Italy for Germany the next day, 2 Nov.

6. We already know Guede is guilty!

Story #2: Knox, Sollecito, and Guede acted together: TRUE

1. Prosecution's motive may have changed several times; this doesn't matter, as one can only speculate on this. Knox and Sollecito are deemed, beyond the slightest of reasonable doubt, to have STAGED the break in, clean up and sex attack scene: Concluded. End of .

2. Hekuran Kokomani twice witnessed all three perpetrators together outside the cottage. Proof that Knox, Sollecito and Guede knew each other.

3. Guede was a neighbour of Sollecito; perhaps he had visited Sollecito's home, or Sollecito/Knox had visited his home.

4. Knox had plenty motive to kill Meredith: Roommates reported disputes between Knox and Meredith, and that Meredith had distanced herself from Knox by October. It is also known that there was a 'clash of character' between Knox and Meredith.

5. Knox had only known Sollecito a very short time, but it is known that Sollecito had a predilection for knives; he always carried one with him. In a phone call with his father this was discussed.

True: It is unlikely that she said, "Hey, let's kill my roommate" rather, Knox and Sollecito were enraged by Meredith following a heated argument with her; the attack carried out in 'a fit of pique'.

There IS DNA evidence linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime.

6. Knox and Sollecito's clothing might have been long disposed of by the time they became suspects.

7. A certain knife provides DNA evidence linking Knox to the murder.

8. 'Bra clasp sitting in a huge pile of dust' - after six weeks - forget it. It has been proved that Meredith's bra was cut the next day; therefore not by Guede!

9. It has been proved that it would have taken more than one person to carry out the full attack on Meredith. End of.

10. Repeat: Dr Stefanoni admits the RFU readings are low (M's blood on knife blade), but her experience is that many cases of unquestionable matches exist showing readings even lower.

Contamination in the lab is excluded by Dr Stefanoni; samples were processed with maximum care to avoid any contamination during lab procedures. Contamination during collection phase is excluded by Judge Micheli, as samples were collected by different officers at different times in different places.

Sollecito's DNA on M's bra clasp is UNQUESTIONABLE, according to lab reports.

11. Hekuran Kokomani has proved he was in the vicinity of the cottage on the night in question, and the previous night.

As regards forensic evidence, there is still a heavy weight of circumstancial evidence against Knox and Sollecito and their guilt is obvious to anyone of at least average intelligence. EVERYONE KNOWS they played their part.


1. Why do neither have an alibi for the night in question?
2. Why did they stage the clean up, break in and sexual assault scenes?

Because they WERE involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Amanda's nickname 'Foxy Knoxy' couldn't be more appropriate: Sly and cunning!


My opponent just makes isolated and *conclusory* statements. He offers no evidentiary support and no unified theory of what happened that night. I"ll address a few general points.

=== Means, Motive, and Opportunity ===

To prove a murder by circumstantial evidence (i.e. without an eyewitness that saw the *whole thing*), the prosecution must prove that a suspect had means, motive, and opportunity. In the current case, Knox lacked means and motive.

--- Motive ---

My opponent mentions the prosecution's new theory: Knox killed Meredith because Meredith complained that Knox didn't flush the toilet. [9] This new theory is no better than the older ones about a demonic sex cult. Roommates have minor disputes about cleanliness all the time. These rarely, if ever, escalate to murder. Knox was a Dean"s List student with a bright future. She wouldn't have murdered her roommate for asking her to pick up more often.

--- Means ---

Knox is alleged to have perfectly erased any presence of herself and Sollecito from within Kercher's room. Putting aside the impossibility of actually doing this, no evidence was ever presented that Knox had the forensic expertise necessary to do so. The police searched Knox's and Sollecito's computers and never found any searches relating to how to clean up a crime scene.

In addition, my opponent claims that this was a crime of passion - Knox killed Kercher because of a roommate spat. Yet, if the murder weapon was a kitchen knife from Sollecito's apartment, Knox would have needed to premeditate the murder and bring the knife with her to her apartment. Thus, the means [murder weapon] does not match the motive [roommate spat].

=== The Alleged Cleanup ===

My opponent claims that it's been proven that the crime scene was cleaned up. This is not true. Using luminol, the police tested both Sollecito's and Knox's apartments for a cleanup. The luminol illuminated footprints both in Sollecito's bathroom and in the hallway in Knox's apartment. However, there are three reasons this doesn't prove a cleanup.

Reason #1: there is no evidence of a cleanup inside *Kercher"s room.*

The prosecution claims that Knox cleaned up in the hallway and bathroom of her apartment and in Sollecito's apartment. But, there is no evidence of a cleanup in Kercher's bedroom. Police did not find bleach residue or other telltale signs of a cleanup inside the murder room. In addition, it would be *impossible* for anyone to clean up their entire presence from Meredith's room while leaving *so much* DNA evidence from Guede in the room. It is hard to believe that Knox meticulously cleaned the common areas but said "fugg it, let's leave the actual room that we killed her in alone."

Reason #2: police have no idea what the substance was.

Police tested for bleach using luminol. Luminol turns blue in the presence of bleach, blood, and about twelve other substances. [10] As Steve Moore - veteran forensic expert at the FBI - explains, luminol always requires further testing to determine whether a substance is bleach, blood, or something else. [10] Police never did any further testing on the lit up footprints. [10] Instead, the police perjured themselves at trial about how luminol works in order to secure a conviction (that was later overturned on appeal). [10]

Reason #3: a bleach-cleaned crime scene shows telltale signs.

As Steve Moore explains, "A crime scene cleaned with bleach wouldn't have footprints or fingerprints; it would have wide swaths of bleach, many times in arcs that give away the tell-tale motions of cleaning and wiping . . . You would see luminol reactions everywhere; it would look like a huge florescent blue paint spill." [10] This is not what the police found at Knox's and Sollecito's apartments. [10] They found a few unidentified footprints and fingerprints. As Moore explains, any cleaning agent contains chemicals that will cause luminol to light up. [10] If a person ever cleans his or her bathroom, there will be some luminol reactions in his or her house. [10]

Conclusion: there was no cleanup. It is illogical that someone would clean up part of the apartment, but not the murder room. And the luminol evidence actually shows the opposite: no telltale signs of a cleanup.

If there was no cleanup, the prosecution has no way to explain why *no traces* of Knox were ever found in the murder room and why only one really sketchy piece of Sollecito's DNA was ever found, whereas massive amounts of Guedo"s DNA were found *all over* the room. The DNA evidence is far more consistent with Guedo acting alone than with Knox and Sollecito assisting him in the crime.

=== Did Meredith fight back? ===

My opponent claims that Meredith had no defensive wounds. However, I cited Steve Moore's analysis of the autopsy photos: Meredith had 46 wounds consistent with a violent struggle. As forensic expert Ron Hendry explains, Meredith's body contains fewer defensive wounds than one might expect from a *prolonged* struggle, but is consistent with one large male quickly overpowering and killing her. [11]

In addition, as Steve Moore explains, during a struggle with a knife, the attacker usually cuts his or her own fingers because the attacker's hand slips over the blade while stabbing. [3] Guede's hands showed three cuts on his fingers consistent with just such a violent struggle over a knife. [3] Knox and Sollecito showed no evidence on their bodies that they were engaged in a violent struggle. [3]

=== The Knife ===

My opponent claims that Sollecito was known to carry a knife. His father testified that he sometimes carried a pen knife, which is a very small knife. [3] The police found no evidence of Kercher's DNA on the pen knife.

Guede was known to carry a switchblade. [2] The police never found this weapon.

Remember, the Italian Medical Examiner testified that of the five stab wounds on Meredith"s body, Sollecito's kitchen knife could *not* have inflicted four of them and *maybe* could have inflicted one of them. [2] It is more likely that the kitchen knife is not the murder weapon. Guede's switchblade is.

=== Proof that Guede and Knox knew each other ===

My opponent claims that Kokomani saw Guede and Knox together on two occasions. The evidence I cited last round says that Kokomani claimed to have hit Knox with his car (because he mistook her for a garbage bag???). He didn't see them on two occasions - he changed his story and said he hit them on two different dates. His testimony was proven completely incomprehensible at trial.

It is strange that if Guede and Knox/Sollecito knew each other, they *never* called or texted each other. Guede was a drug dealer/criminal. Knox was an honors student. It seems unlikely that they ran in the same crowds.

During her torturous interrogation, police pushed Knox to identify a suspect. Knox identified her boss (Lamumba) as the likely killer. If Knox had really staged the crime scene to look like a break-in and erased her presence there (but not Guede's), it would have made more sense to identify Guede [who had a history of burglary and his DNA was all over the room]. Why didn't Knox identify Guede to police? Because she didn't know him.

=== The Alibi ===

Knox and Sollecito's alibi is that they hung out together at Sollecito's apartment, ate dinner, watched a movie on his computer, and went to sleep. The computer shows evidence that it was accessed during this time period by someone, and Sollecito's friend has testified that he came by Sollecito's place half an hour before the murder and saw Sollecito and Knox together at Sollecito's apartment. No evidence has proven this alibi to be untrue.

=== Conclusion ===

In spite of massive police misconduct, the evidence is still more consistent with Guede acting alone. Pro fails to meet his burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Hippocritt 1 year ago
As far as Con"s arguments goes, they use dubious sources as citations which includes a website which appears to be innocence propaganda and also a newspaper article as opposed to unbiased sources. Subsequently I would have to say that they appear to be working off false information, which is being rather generous seeing as though this information could easily have been verified if they worked off the source/court documents instead of opinion based information.
Con is also guilty of bald statements with no evidence to back up their claims such as:
- "However, first the Italian court of appeals found that the lab technicians and police had been willing to perjure themselves about the forensic evidence in this case". Perjure is a strong term, and no-one was ever found guilty of perjury in a court of law in this case.
- "It seems more likely that Guede ditched the real murder weapon elsewhere, and police have never found it" What makes it more likely? Con gives no reasons apart from their bald assertion.
- "but the original theory was that Amanda Knox, her boyfriend (Raphael Sollecito), and Rudy Guede were part of a Satanic cult or sex club" This was never mooted by the prosecution, and in no court documents is this ever mentioned.
As a personal pet peeve, I also see that they"ve tilted the argument in their favour by opting for the legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt which can be asserted in a court of law, but it"s not something that can necessarily be asserted against someone in an argument. I personally don"t think BARD is intelligent as it tilts the odds in the defendants favour. I understand that this is all part of debating, but I find it particularly distasteful when people use the BARD standard as a subjective means to defend their position particularly when that position is defending someone who, objectively, is more likely than not is guilty of murder.
Posted by Hippocritt 1 year ago
I agree that Con has "won" but can't help but feel this debate has been set up for Con to win via a strawman opponent. Suspiciously, Pros profile was created around the time of this debate, with no activity since and the fact that Pro has whittled their own talking points down to bald, unreinforced statements seems laughably inept as each of those points could be easily elaborated upon. For instance "Meredith was virtually motionless throughout the attack etc" doesn"t even mention the implication that this shows that multiple attackers was more like than a single attacker. Pro could have said the below things to support his argument:
- A complete lack of defensive wounds suggesting that Meredith had been restrained.
- Multiple stab wounds from different angles (the left and right of Meredith"s neck) meaning a sole attacker would have had to have switched hands when attacking, or that the victim turned 180 degrees permitting the blade to penetrate two sides of the neck.
- A footprint made in the victim's blood on the bathmat didn't belong to Rudy Guede and as such was evidence of the presence of another person who was most likely male + 3 bloody shoe prints belong to a female shoe size 37 were discovered in the victim's room indicating the involvement of a 3rd female individual.
- Bruising on Meredith's elbows, indicating that her arms had been restrained from behind.
- Expert testimony of Dr Lalli and Dr Liviero said "the nature of the bruises and multiple wounds caused by several different methods - suffocation, strangulation and stabbing- led them to deduce Kercher was attacked by more than 1 person. Dr Liviero stated "There were more hands involved" which is basically what it comes down to. Rudy as a single attacker does not have sufficient hands to do all the required tasks. A single attacker needs one hand to wield the knife, which leaves a single hand to restrain Meredith, and there is no way to restrain someone who is upright with just one hand.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct because pro came across as a jerk and one time stated that anyone who disagrees with him has a below average IQ. Con was the only one to use sources. Pro was never able to prove his case and beyond that con made it look like Knox was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Also spelling goes to con because pro repeatedly capitalized letters in several inappropriate instances.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was so clear but it was kind of brutal. Con was able to lay out a much stronger case for innocence and properly refuted all of pros claims about the case with strong and reliable and sources. His formatting was much better and way easy to read. This was brutal brutal. In addition to that Con upheld his end and provided reasonable doubt. The bop was with bro, and con was able to properly refute it to the point where I was left thinking she is probably not guilty